Standing Committee E

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

New clause 1 - Discrimination in appointments

'(1) Section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c.32) is amended as follows. 
 (2) For subsection (1) substitute— 
 ''(1) In making appointments under section 39 on any occasion, the Chief Constable shall appoint from the pool of qualified candidates formed for that purpose by virtue of section 44(5) persons of whom— 
 (a) 43 per cent. shall be persons who are treated as Roman Catholic; 
 (b) 43 per cent. shall be persons who are treated as Protestants; and 
 (c) 14 per cent. shall be persons who are not so treated.''.'.—[Mr. Carmichael.]
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Question proposed [this day], That the clause be read a Second time. 
 Question again proposed.

David Amess: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
 New clause 2—Removal of discrimination from recruitment— 
'(1) In Part 6 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c.32) for section 46 substitute— 
 ''Under-representation 
 (1) In making appointments under section 39 the Chief Constable may take such steps as he determines appropriate to encourage applications by persons currently under-represented in the Police Service. 
 (2) In making appointments to the police support staff under section 4(3) the Chief Constable (acting by virtue of subsection (5) of that section) may take such steps as he determines appropriate to encourage applications by persons currently under-represented in the police support staff. 
 (3) For the purposes of this section ''persons currently under-represented'' means persons forming part of a social group by virtue of their sex, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation who at the time of consideration by the Chief Constable are under-represented''. 
 (2) In Part 6 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, leave out section 47.'.
 New clause 3—Appointments to the Police Service of Northern Ireland— 
'In the event that— 
 (a) the Chief Constable is unable to appoint his required number of police trainees or police support staff, or 
 (b) the number of serving officers is below that intended at the time of consideration, 
 the Secretary of State shall, at the request of a majority of the Police Board and acting on the recommendation of the Chief Constable, make an order to suspend the provisions of section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 for a period of six months.'.

David Wilshire: If we were not
 quite ready, Mr. Amess, we are now. I welcome you to the Chair. You missed some riveting discussions this morning.
 When we adjourned for lunch, we were considering new clauses 1, 2 and 3. A number of Members had spoken, and we had covered a lot of ground. I had spoken for only a couple of minutes, so I had not said a great deal. I will summarise the point that I was making, as it is crucial to the debate. 
 It may be simplistic, but I believe that it is reasonable to say that the origins of many of the problems of Northern Ireland and much of the cause of the violence in recent years lies in discrimination, both imagined and real. I do not say that the discrimination was not real. There was discrimination against one of the two communities in Northern Ireland. Much action taken with the aim of solving the problems of Northern Ireland has sought to eliminate that discrimination. Many arguments advanced by the Patten report and much of the reasoning for a complete review of the old Royal Ulster Constabulary were based on the fact that there was considered to be discrimination in how the RUC was set up and how it operated and recruited. Against the background of ending perceived and real discrimination, these changes have come about.

Gregory Campbell: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is summarising and seeking to portray the background to the current situation, but when he talks about discrimination in relation to the RUC, it is important that the historical context of that is put on record. When the RUC evolved from the old Royal Irish Constabulary in the 1920s, a significant proportion of places—approximately a third—were reserved specifically for members of the Catholic community. As the IRA shot and killed many of those who applied, the number applying from the Catholic community declined from those early days. It was not discrimination, but intimidation.

David Wilshire: I understand entirely what the hon. Gentleman says, and I hope to address that point in a moment. I deliberately used the phrase ''alleged and real discrimination'' because, for the purposes of this discussion, it is unnecessary to go into which discrimination was real and which alleged. Rightly or wrongly, it was considered that there had been discrimination, and that has been addressed. In that context, I deeply regret that the Government's solution to end discrimination is to discriminate. We are in the business of discussing discrimination to end discrimination. I do not understand—

David Amess: Order. I do not wish to embarrass the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), but I do not recognise her as a member of the Committee.

Lembit Öpik: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I was led to believe in another Committee that Members who are not members of the Committee are allowed to contribute, but not to vote. Will you give guidance on that matter?

David Amess: The advice that I have is clear. That matter is appropriate to delegated legislation Committees. In a Standing Committee such as this, I am afraid that the hon. Member for North Down must retire to the Bar if she wishes to converse with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).

John Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. Would your ruling have been different if we were considering a statutory instrument rather than a Bill?

David Amess: The answer to that is yes.

David Wilshire: I shall try to deal with the issue of discrimination as briefly as I can. It makes no sense to say that the way to solve discrimination is to discriminate—there must be other ways. Before lunch, it was argued that affirmative action could achieve the same results, but replacing discrimination against Catholics with discrimination against Protestants serves only to replace one disfranchised, disillusioned and angry community with another. If the history of Northern Ireland teaches us anything, it is that violence soon follows when there are disillusioned, disgruntled communities.

Tom Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his last statement and explain exactly why 50:50 recruitment discriminates against Protestants?

David Wilshire: If more people apply from the Protestant community than from the Catholic, the service must say no to people whom it would otherwise admit. To me, that is blindingly obvious. If there are quotas and more people from one side than the other apply, the service, to meet those quotas, must discriminate against people whom it would otherwise let in, especially if vacancies in the other quota are not being filled as there are not enough applicants.

Tom Harris: Given that the Chief Constable has met the full quota for recruitment year on year since the Police Service of Northern Ireland was set up, how can the hon. Gentleman suggest that people are losing out? There is a certain number of spaces, which are all being filled. In almost any situation, people apply for but do not get jobs because there are not enough spaces.

David Wilshire: I understand that less than 40 per cent. of current applicants are Catholic, but even if the hon. Gentleman is correct and the quotas can be filled on both sides, the proper test—the non-discriminatory test—of who should be in an organisation, given a choice, is employing those who are best for the job. If a large number of people from one community are better able to do the job, but are turned down in favour of people who are less able, that is discrimination. In any other situation, it would be contrary to law.

Eric Joyce: There is a requirement to discriminate because of a historical pattern of discrimination. Sometimes we need to take unusual measures to address a problem that has existed for many years. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that we are required in this case to take an unusual measure to deal with discrimination that has existed over the years?

David Wilshire: I said that there has been discrimination and we have to do something about it. Of course I agree that there is a problem. I have no difficulty whatever in saying that we must find a way to make the PSNI more representative of all communities. I accept that, but I do not accept that we have to do it in ways that are anti-human rights. That is all that I am suggesting.

John Taylor: On police recruitment, I do not know whether my hon. Friend would regard a report on BBC Online of 8 December 2002 as persuasive, but according to that source and the Chief Constable, 250 applicants then before him were Protestant, while only 26 were Roman Catholic. As a result of the 50:50 rule, he was able to make only 52 appointments. That thoroughly underlines my hon. Friend's case.

David Wilshire: That is my understanding of some difficulties that have cropped up. I can only return to the point that we are being asked to include a measure that in any other circumstance would be illegal.

Paul Goodman: Section 46 of the 2000 Act states plainly that
''the Chief Constable shall appoint from the pool of qualified applicants . . . an even number of persons of whom . . . one half shall be persons who are treated as Roman Catholic; and . . . one half shall be persons who are not so treated.''
 Does my hon. Friend agree that that is clearly discriminatory against Protestants and members of other religions? Labour Members may argue that it is justified, but it is still discrimination.

David Wilshire: I thank my hon. Friend for that, because it is true. This is a clear case of discrimination, which happened in the past and which we have tried to prevent from happening again. I do not buy the argument that we should do something that we have said is wrong just because the ends justify the means. There is a problem, but that is not the way to solve it.
 We would make more progress in finding a solution if we understood the point about how the situation came about in the first place. I am well aware of the arguments about the RUC being biased and I can accept that there was some substance to them in the past. Due to that, the argument follows, people from the other tradition in Northern Ireland were unwilling to join an organisation that they saw as oppressive and discriminatory. 
 I understand that argument and there may be some truth in it, but, without any shred of doubt, it is also true that intimidation stopped people joining the RUC. Instead of addressing that problem, the Government have introduced a scheme that ducks the issue of intimidation. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann has pointed out that the situation is getting better in many places in the Province, but not in hard-line republican areas. That should suggest to the Government that they are only papering over the cracks rather than addressing the problem.

David Trimble: I want to add a snippet of purely anecdotal information. I cannot comment on the prevalence of this, but an Assembly colleague has told me that in one hard-line republican area, people who are thinking of applying to the police have first to report to the local IRA leadership to get
 permission to do so. Occasionally, they are granted it, which is an interesting sidelight on the character of their applications.

David Wilshire: That invites some of us to draw conclusions about the people who are being given permission to apply. In reality, introducing the discriminatory scheme to address the problem will not solve it—we must address the intimidation. The right hon. Gentleman's comment may be anecdotal, but it is sufficiently serious to be checked out.
 Time and again in policing debates, I have heard the reasonable nationalist argument, which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) would make if he were here, about inclusiveness being essential. I know the argument and I accept that it is real, but there is the alternative argument that Sinn Fein-IRA have no interest in seeing the new PSNI functioning properly. They will continue to use every means at their disposal, including intimidation and torture, to ensure that even this concession and discretion in favour of the nationalist community will not work. The Government should address that, as I have no doubt that the problem would not exist if it were made acceptable and easy for members of the nationalist community in Northern Ireland to apply and be accepted.

Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman explained at length what is wrong with the legislation, but he has yet to propose an alternative mechanism to that proposed by the Patten report. Other than wanting to get rid of intimidation, what mechanism does his party propose to replace the existing one?

David Wilshire: I shall explain why new clause 2, despite some of its imperfections, is the right way to go. We could refine the definitions, which I shall talk about in a moment. However, some mechanisms will encourage, assist and enable, and the results will be what we all want. The mechanisms will not include something that, under any other circumstances, would be declared illegal and the legislation struck down.
 I disagree with new clause 1 in theory, but if the Government are determined do something illegal because they believe that the ends justify the means, I shall make my comments in that spirit. If we must go down that road, I welcome an attempt to be more realistic. We could argue ad nauseam about the percentage, but we do not need to get hung up about whether it is 43, 42 or 45 per cent. I shall not become locked in that argument. If we were trying to be fair, it would be interesting to note that 43–43, or another equal figure, would still be discrimination that we would have to address. 
 However we consider the quota system, the difficulty is that by debating these figures we are constantly forcing the people of Northern Ireland to decide which of the two camps they are in, just as they are trying to rid themselves of that mindset. The system should allow for another group, but a 50:50 system does not. It was suggested that the argument was religious—one had to decide whether one was Catholic or Protestant. However, that would appear to discriminate against the Orthodox religions, because if 
 one were to ask members of an Orthodox religion whether they considered themselves to be Protestants, the answer would be a very firm no. If one asked them whether they considered themselves to be Roman Catholics, however, they would also say no. At the moment, we have excluded members of Orthodox religions from serving in the PSNI.

Stephen McCabe: If the hon. Gentleman is searching for an alternative model to 50:50, will he consider the one proposed by the Conservative party chairman for her own party, in which there is a mixture of people of different genders, disabilities, ethnic minorities, indeed anything to get away from its current horrid face? Might that be an acceptable alternative?

David Wilshire: I would be delighted to rebut the absolute rubbish that I have just heard, but I have little doubt you will rule me out of order, Mr. Benton, the moment that I try to say that the hon. Gentleman is wrong and does not begin to understand. I shall therefore not say how silly the hon. Gentleman's intervention was.

Paul Goodman: I do not want to enter fully into the debate on new clause 2, which the right hon. Member for Upper Bann tabled and which we will support, but will my hon. Friend confirm that it contains references to sex, religion, ethnicity and sexual orientation?

David Wilshire: I shall come to that, but shall leave hon. Members to anticipate what I might say after yesterday's debate.

David Trimble: With respect, the hon. Gentleman's point about the Government's approach discriminating against members of Orthodox religions by preventing them from applying to join the PSNI is misconceived. The scheme proposed by the legislation is designed to guarantee 50 per cent. of places to Roman Catholic applicants, and 50 per cent. to all others. I am not sure how many members of Orthodox religions there are, but they would fall within the category of all others, as would Muslims, Jews and Hindus. The Government's approach has something to commend it because Jews, and probably most Muslims, Hindus and Chinese too, are Unionists rather than nationalists.

David Wilshire: That puts me in my place. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman as what he said reinforces my sense of the injustice of the Government's approach. We said that there should be a balance within the Northern Ireland Police Service; there was discrimination against the Catholic community so it was decided that it should have equality with the Protestant tradition.
 We then discover that although the Catholic community is to be given half the places, the Protestant community is to be given not the other half but the other half minus whoever else may come along. That makes the discrimination worse. It is not discrimination to be equal, but to force Protestants into an artificial minority within the Province. If that does not store up trouble for the future, I do not know what will. It shows the futility of using an illegal way of solving a problem, which arose in the first place from the same illegality.

Tom Harris: It is not illegal.

David Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman says that it is not illegal. If there is not a derogation for the proposals under the Human Rights Act 1998, why on earth seek one to say that human rights legislation will not apply? I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wants to contradict himself.

Tom Harris: I concur with a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce). By definition, if there is a derogation from the human rights legislation, the clause does not fall foul of it.

David Wilshire: How wonderful! The great Human Rights Act, much vaunted by the Labour party, applies only when it suits their convenience. They are not universal human rights; they are only for the people to whom the Government are prepared to give them and the rest of us can go hang if it does not suit their purpose. That is a wonderful admission and I am pleased that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman.

Lembit Öpik: One could argue that we could reintroduce hanging by getting a derogation and it would not be illegal.

David Wilshire: Exactly. I refrained from making that comment. There will be no such thing as morals or ethics, only what the Government say by diktat will be illegal because it suits their purpose. That is the sort of world that some members of their party want to create and I am appalled by it.
 New clause 1 would be an improvement but it does not go as far as I would want. New clause 2 raises important issues and it starts by providing that the Chief Constable will decide what is to happen. If there is to be an independent Police Service with the objective of taking positive action to achieve something and a Chief Constable is appointed on that basis, he will achieve that objective quicker if we let him get on with it rather than writing reams of measures saying what he will and will not do.

Tom Harris: Would the hon. Gentleman welcome an initiative by the Chief Constable under the new clause to introduce a system of 50:50 recruitment of Catholics and Protestants?

David Wilshire: The Chief Constable has no alternative but to uphold the law, which states what he will and will not do. If it states that he will recruit 50 per cent. of this or that group and do it in a certain way, he has no choice but to do it, as that is the nature of the job. But it would be far more sensible for an Act of Parliament to lay down the ultimate objective and leave the Chief Constable with the discretion to achieve it in the most practical way, which causes the least difficulty and upset the fewest people. It would be sensible, not only in respect of new clause 2, to say that the Chief Constable must decide these matters.
 New clause 3, which I would link with this part of new clause 2, deals with what happens if the current way of doing things does not work. If we reach a position where the threat of being burned out of one's house or having one's kneecap shot off is applied and the number of Roman Catholics seeking to join the police nosedives again through intimidation, only another handful of applicants—after all, only a 
 handful applied under current legislation—will apply and we will end up with a shortage of police officers. If something like that were to happen, new clause 3 would provide a sensible safety mechanism. I would be willing to place the responsibility with the Chief Constable, who has the operational challenge of providing practical policing in part of the United Kingdom, irrespective of whether we have solved earlier problems. That part of new clause 2 is eminently sensible and new clause 3 ties in with it by providing an escape clause if the practicalities become unmanageable. 
 New clause 2 may provide an opportunity to explore an alternative way of achieving the Government's objectives. We should flag up under-representation and introduce procedures that will help to recruit people to redress the balance. One of the problems is that the 50:50 rule is viewed as simplistic with 50 per cent. here and 50 per cent. there. The second 50 per cent. gathers the others, but no attempt is made to view it in other than sectarian terms. 
 Reflecting on the wording of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, I wonder whether he has transposed social groups with ethnic groups. Are not the ethnic groupings the ones where a balance must be sought and the social groupings simply part of it? I have never viewed Northern Ireland's problems in terms of social groupings: focusing on different ethnic groups is important and referring to their religion is often only shorthand. Considerably more than religion is at stake, as religion is just one part of the different history, traditions and ways of life of two communities. I support the principle of the new clause, but not necessarily the wording. 
 As to the items listed in the new clause, I assume that it is reasonably straightforward to work out which ethnic group and perhaps social group people belong to. It may not be difficult to work out which sex people belong to, but I stop short of endorsing ''sexual orientation'', because I have not the slightest idea what would establish the sexual orientation of every police officer in the NIPS and I would not encourage the Chief Constable to ask. 
 Some practical problems remain with the wording, but I have no difficulty in supporting new clauses 2 and 3. At a push, I would support new clause 1 as well, but I would prefer to settle for new clause 2.

John Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I should like to thank the Minister, who undertook this morning to provide the Committee with a schedule of the ranks of the PSNI in comparison with those of the Garda Siochana. She has done so and the papers are available under your good chairmanship, Mr. Amess. I thought that it was appropriate to thank her for acting so promptly.

David Amess: That was not a point of order, but it is nice to have it on the record.

Jane Kennedy: The liveliness of your calling us to order, Mr. Amess, has inspired liveliness all around the Committee. This has been one of the most energetic debates in our consideration of the Bill so far.
 I thank the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) for his comments; the notes are available on the Table in front of me. 
 Let me draw the attention of hon. Members to section 46 of the 2000 Act, the title of which makes it clear that it deals with temporary provisions concerning the composition of the police. As I pointed out in an intervention, it is about discrimination in appointments. The 50:50 arrangements will, by their temporary nature, be subject to review by the Secretary of State next March. Renewal of the provisions would require the affirmative resolution of both Houses. There will be an opportunity for a further full and equally heated debate on this matter. Members of the Committee may wish to make a note of that in their diaries.

John Taylor: Noting what the hon. Lady said about affirmative resolution, could she tell us whether, rather than that taking place in a Committee Room, it could take place in the Chamber?

Jane Kennedy: That is not a matter for me. I would expect that it would take place through the normal affirmative procedure channels, which would be in Committee. However, I cannot predict that now.
 I should like to deal with one or two of the comments that have been made today. I was surprised by the assertion that the Government had said that this would not discriminate. As I have said already, the Act is clear about this. I believe that there is a misunderstanding of the process by which appointments to the PSNI are made. Applicants for the PSNI are considered on their merits. They are considered according to the skills, experience and qualifications that they will bring to the post. They are then tested on their merits. All who achieve the appropriate standard enter a merit pool. It is only from that point onwards that the 50:50 procedure applies. Once a candidate has been appointed as a trainee to the PSNI, their appointment stands irrespective of what happens to other candidates for the PSNI regulars within that trainee pool. Once trainees are appointed, they are employees of the PSNI.

Lembit Öpik: It was three months, one week and four days ago that I asked the hon. Lady whether there was any pressure for a reciprocal withdrawal to maintain the 50:50. It sounds to me, notwithstanding what she said about existing trainees, that there is indeed a recipricocity that would cause eligible candidates to withdraw. Have I misunderstood her?

Jane Kennedy: Yes, absolutely. I hope that I have just made that plain. Once candidates are appointed as trainees, there is no pressure on them to withdraw should a trainee of the other community drop out of the process. The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. It is at the merit pool stage that the Chief Constable is required to draw the candidates on a one-for-one basis when appointing them as trainees.

Gregory Campbell: The Minister is right to say that there is no question of discrimination at the point of application; I do not think that that has been
 suggested either in Committee, the House or elsewhere. But it is precisely at the merit pool stage where problems have arisen in the past. In each competition, there have been two or three times more Protestants than Catholics in the merit pool. To tell those additional Protestants that it is because they are Protestant that they are not being employed is discrimination. Surely the Minister must accept that?

Jane Kennedy: The whole purpose of this is to provide arrangements that discriminate, on a temporary basis, in order to address a serious problem that I will come to in a moment. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes bears directly upon the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) made. The Chief Constable has been able to recruit to the PSNI well in excess of the levels of recruitment that even the Patten commission had expected he could achieve. That being the case, individuals are not being turned away from vacant posts within the PSNI.

David Trimble: With respect, the Minister's point is specious. Yes, there were high levels of recruitment last year. If we had proceeded at the lower levels of recruitment that would otherwise have obtained, no more Protestants would have been appointed to the Police Service. However, the fact is that, presently, hundreds of people are being told that they have passed the merit stage, but that they cannot proceed further because they are of the wrong religion. That is discrimination. Indeed, as the Minister pointed out earlier, the legislation is quite bold about that; it admits that it is provision to discriminate.
 The same has happened on an even worse scale with regard to civilian employees. That was not recommended by Patten. In a recent recruitment round for civilian employees, only 30-odd Catholics applied, as opposed to hundreds of Protestants. I do not have the exact figures to hand, but I believe that more than 300 were turned down because of their religion.

Jane Kennedy: I am not in a position to dispute those figures—I have not seen them—but they seem extraordinarily high. However, it is important to focus for a moment on the objective. Why are we proceeding with the recruitment arrangements? In a nutshell, their purpose is to address ''the most striking problem'' in the composition of the police service, according to the Patten commission, which is the under-representation of Catholics.
 We are not endeavouring to recruit precisely according to the make-up of the population, which is the objective of new clause 1. Our goal is to rectify a particularly acute compositional imbalance that the Patten commission saw as being so significant as to have a real impact on the effectiveness of the police service. We must keep that as our focal point. What are we doing in moving the police service forward to make it as effective as it can be? The quicker we can achieve a proper balance in the PSNI in terms of community representation, and revert to conventional recruitment procedures, the better. I will certainly be among those who rejoice when that day arrives. 
 We also need to bear in mind that the independent commission chose the 50:50 profile because it reflected the demographic breakdown of people expected to be in the age bracket for recruitment during the operation of the policy. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann is right. That is not to say that other under-represented groups, such as those that we have debated—women, ethnic minorities and others—are to be ignored. However, for a range of reasons, the commission did not see discriminatory methods of recruitment or specific compositional targets, which one might call quotas, as the solution to that problem.

Tom Harris: I am sure that my hon. Friend already knows this statistic, but the number of female applicants for the PSNI is 36 per cent. of the total, and the highest of any police force in the United Kingdom.

Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend is right. The police recruitment agencies are required by the recruitment regulations to advertise ''imaginatively and persistently'', particularly in places likely to reach under-represented groups, and there has been a degree of success, as my hon. Friend points out.
 The legal basis for the 50:50 provisions is also worth considering. Comments have been made about that. As has been said, the Government were able to negotiate an exemption from the 2000 EU directive on employment equality, on the basis that the 50:50 provisions would 
''tackle the under-representation of one of the major religious communities in the police service''.
 That firm legal foundation was further underpinned in the High Court last year, when the compatability of the provisions with the European convention on human rights was challenged in the Parsons judicial review case. However, the Court was satisfied that there was no violation of article 9, on freedom of thought, conscience and religion. On the article 14 challenge, which related to prohibition of discrimination, the Court considered whether the 50:50 provisions pursued a legitimate aim—in other words, did they meet a pressing social need?—and whether they were proportionate to that aim. The court found that both those requirements were fully satisfied. In its judgment, it stated that 
''the circumstances provide formidable support for a method of recruitment that would strike at the heart of the problem''
 that we face in Northern Ireland. 
 Can we really say that the circumstances also justify positive discrimination in favour of those classed as non-determined, as the amendment would have it? Can we identify a pressing social need of sufficient strength to withstand legal challenge to increase the proposition of non-determined officers and civilians in the police service? I do not believe that we can yes to either of those questions, but let us set that aside for a moment and consider whether the quota that the amendment proposes would be workable. Quite simply, it would not. In the three competitions completed to date, the highest proportion of non-determined candidates to reach the pool of qualified 
 applicants was 0.64 per cent. Most recently, in competition three, no such candidates reached the pool. Of all the trainees recruited to the PSNI to date, only 0.62 per cent. have been classed as non-determined. All those figures clearly show that even if a quota of 14 per cent. of non-determined recruits could be justified, it is simply not achievable.

David Trimble: I rise in defence of the amendment and to point out to the Minister that she is getting confused between the census figures arrived at by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) for those persons who do not want to declare a religious affiliation, and the figures that the Minister derived from the fair employment monitoring procedures, which attribute community origin to people whether they like it or not. The census figures for those who want to have a religious affiliation are 45 per cent. Protestant, 40 per cent. Catholic, and 14 per cent. other—those persons who do not declare. Once community backgrounds are attributed in accordance with fair employment legislation, the figures are 53 per cent. Protestant, 44 per cent. Catholic, and 3 per cent. other. The Minister's figures should therefore be compared with the 3 per cent. figure, not the 14 per cent. figure. She is getting confused, and I do wish that she would get around to dealing with my point that the target age group is roughly balanced, so the 50-50 requirement is not needed if participation rates are equal. That is the problem.

Jane Kennedy: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The numbers of applicants do not reflect the breakdown in the age groups but, for the reasons already given, intimidation continues against young men and women from the Catholic community applying to join the PSNI. I should not let that point be made without stating what might be perceived as the obvious, which is that intimidation from any quarter, which prevents young people from applying to serve in the PSNI, is unacceptable. I shall talk about our efforts to tackle that intimidation when concluding my remarks. I have not confused the figures. The point made by the right hon. Gentleman does not deflect me from my conclusion that the Liberal Democrat new clause is unworkable. It would not assist the current situation in any way.
 New clause 2 would replace the 50-50 recruitment arrangements with a provision that would make statutory provision for affirmative action measures to encourage applications from groups currently under-represented in the PSNI. Similar amendments to those discussed today have been debated during the passage of this Bill and that of the 2000 Act, and I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is unfamiliar with the Government's arguments. 
 The Patten commission and report fully recognised the importance of affirmative action measures in bringing about compositional change in the police service. Indeed, the commission made a range of specific recommendations to that effect on, for example, the role of community leaders, establishing links between schools and universities and the police service, and developing advertising strategies. However, Patten's clear view was that the imbalance 
 between Catholic or nationalist and Protestant or Unionist was so extreme that exceptional measures were justified for a temporary period to lend some impetus to the process of compositional change. 
 The right hon. Member for Upper Bann says that the scheme is not working and is unnecessary, but the impact of 50:50 recruitment can already be seen. The proportion of Catholics in the regular police service has risen from 8 per cent. at the time of the Patten report in 1999 to 12.2 per cent. as of 1 March this year. That compares with an increase of slightly more than 1 per cent. in the 10 years prior to the Patten reforms. The impact on the overall composition of the police service will be taken into account as part of the review of the 50:50 recruitment arrangements, to which I referred earlier, provided for under section 47 of the 2000 Act. That will take place early next year. The 50:50 arrangements also apply to police support staff, and although the independent recruitment agency has only recently been appointed, the recruitment measures are already having some effect, with an increase from 12 per cent. to 13.5 per cent. in the proportion of Catholics working among police support staff. 
 As I have said, under-representation of women and ethnic minorities is also a live issue for the PSNI. Section 48 of the 2000 Act provides for the board to make an action plan to address the under-representation of women in the service, and the Act also provides for the application to the police of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which places a duty on them to have regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity. That provides an appropriate vehicle under which the matters raised in the new clauses can be taken forward. However, the under-representation of Catholics remains our current priority.

David Wilshire: I want to take the Minister back a moment. She said that the arrangements apply not only to the police, but to civilian support services. What is the situation for contracted-out services? If something is put out to contract—catering, for example—will the contractors be required to follow the rules too? If so, how could the contractor plead when hauled before a court under human rights legislation for providing catering in a discriminatory way?

Jane Kennedy: Contracted-out services are not subject to the 50:50 recruitment requirements.
 As the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland has stated, goals, timetables and affirmative action measures are unlikely to produce the necessary change in the composition of the police for a considerable period. It is not that the measures would not change the composition, but that they would not affect it for some time. We need to see a more balanced and representative police service in the shorter term, and the 50:50 recruitment rules will enable us to achieve that. 
 New clause 3 would place a requirement on the Secretary of State, if requested to do so by the board, to make an order suspending the 50:50 provisions 
 either if the required number of police trainees or support staff could not otherwise be appointed or if the number of serving officers or police support staff were below complement at the time of consideration. A similar proposal has already been discussed at some length in another place. It is worth reiterating that the Secretary of State's existing discretionary power under the 2000 Act to amend the 50:50 quota provisions has not been used. He has the power to amend the provisions when sufficient numbers of police trainees or support staff cannot otherwise be appointed, but he has never been invited to use it.

John Taylor: The Minister has been scrupulous in her dealings with the Committee, but she is now being somewhat complacent. I will put to her the point that I made earlier, regarding the severe difficulties and under-manning of the PSNI.
 Last autumn, the Chief Constable sought to undertake civilian recruitment to free up officers and put them on the beat. According to the Chief Constable, 250 applicants were Protestant, and only 26 were Roman Catholic. As a result of the 50:50 rule, he was able to make only 52 appointments. The arithmetic is straightforward: 26 from one group and 26 from the other, which meant that approximately 224 Protestants who were willing to be recruited were not recruited. These are serious numbers. Will the Minister stay with the 50:50 rule even in the face of the fact that it is leading to severe under-establishment in the PSNI?

Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman refers me to a text that I do not have in front of me. I am not aware of the recruitment effort that was made to which the Chief Constable referred. I am aware of problems in one particular area that have now been addressed by the appointment of recruitment agencies to take recruitment matters forward. Since their appointment, all recruitment drives run by the two agencies have been so good that it has always been possible to appoint the required numbers of recruits under the 50:50 arrangements.
 We are not complacent. If a problem has been caused by the 50:50 arrangements, we are prepared to listen to a clear case when it is made to us. Undeniably, there are shortages of skills and experience in certain areas. The PSNI and the Policing Board have together developed a human resources strategy to address the current manpower difficulties. 
 The Government have made it clear on several occasions during the debates that we are aware that Policing Board members are considering seeking a limited exception to the 50:50 recruitment arrangements, to allow the Chief Constable to address the current shortage of experienced officers at the rank of constable with specific specialist skills.

John Taylor: On that point, may I make it clear to the Committee that as recently as 11 October 2002, the total number of regular officers in the PSNI was 6,905, against an establishment figure of 8,488. The police service was therefore light by 1,500 regular officers. That is a serious situation. It is not the time to be lecturing the Committee about the fairness of the 50:50 system and the need to recruit more Catholics into the
 police force. Of course there is a need to recruit more Catholics into the police force, but there is also a need for the police force to be up to strength. It has 1,500 officers too few.

Jane Kennedy: I recognise the 6,900 figure, but not the 1,500 discrepancy to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I will look into the matter.
 Given that we received representations that the Chief Constable wished to recruit constables with a particular skill, and the Policing Board unanimously agreed that an exception should be made, the chairman of the board wrote to the Secretary of State yesterday to ask the Government to make an appropriate amendment to the 2000 Act to facilitate that. I am aware that from time to time difficulties are created.

Tom Harris: In response to the comment made by the hon. Member for Solihull, would the Minister agree that, unfortunately, a number of police forces throughout the UK regularly fail to reach their full complement of officers? It is therefore unfair of the hon. Gentleman to say that because that has happened in Northern Ireland, it is due to the 50:50 recruitment policy. It regularly happens to other police forces that do not have such a policy. Would the Minister agree that the hon. Gentleman may be using the matter as a red herring, when there are many other reasons why police officers—

John Taylor: Certainly not. Outrageous. How dare you say that?

David Amess: Order.

Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend makes a good point.

John Taylor: He does not. What I said was that—

David Amess: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to desist from making comments from a sedentary position.

John Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to you and the Committee.

David Amess: Entirely accepted.

Jane Kennedy: We have carefully examined the board's proposals and we intend to table an amendment on Report to give effect to the board's decision and enable the appointment of constables, particularly detective constables, other than through the customary 50:50 route. I shall not go into further detail here, because we shall do so on Report. However, I want to flag up the fact that, where necessary, we are prepared to assess the impact of the 50:50 rule on the ability of the Chief Constable to recruit, particularly where adverse effects are discernible and the Policing Board unanimously reaches a decision.

David Trimble: It is important to place on the record our welcome for the Government new clause, which will mean a departure from 50:50 recruitment provisions. I am pleased that the Government have been prepared to reflect on the Policing Board's proposals. At the same time, I deprecate the fact that
 the Government were prepared to act only on the basis of a unanimous decision by the Policing Board, which is a bad precedent. The composition of the board might change and the Government could place obstacles in the way of other good ideas coming from it.
 Rather than attaching themselves to the unanimity of the board, the Government would have done better to attach themselves to the good sense of the proposal. I am pleased at the departure from 50:50 at the board's request, but I remain concerned that the Government act only on utilitarian grounds rather than in response to the injustice committed against hundreds of people. Should that not also be remedied?

Jane Kennedy: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about unanimity. I referred to that point because in previous debates we noted the Policing Board's ability to deal with extremely sensitive and difficult issues on the basis of unanimity. However, it is important to understand that we are not placing that requirement on the board. I am mindful of the need for properly skilled officers to deliver services that the community rightfully demands. I am sympathetic to the Chief Constable's difficulties in respect of detective constables.

John Taylor: I wonder whether I might go into semi-constructive mode for a moment. As I understand it—the Minister will confirm it or otherwise—the 50:50 rule applies only to the recruitment of constables. Is there no scope for the Chief Constable to recruit police officers above the rank of constable from other parts of the United Kingdom, thereby obviating the rule and securing good, experienced officers to meet the deficiency? Should not such a constructive route be exploited as far as possible?

Jane Kennedy: Indeed. For officers of sergeant rank and above, that facility is available, if the Chief Constable wants to use it.
 The problem with the new clauses is that they go too far and could significantly undermine the 50:50 recruitment policy, to which we remain firmly committed. Why are we so committed to it? [Interruption.] I sometimes wonder why it should need stating. Yesterday, I had the privilege to meet three people who were making representations to me on a different point. Their fathers had been serving officers with the Royal Ulster Constabulary who were murdered in the 1970s. Our focus is to bring about circumstances in which those murderous attacks no longer happen. 
 The 50:50 recruitment arrangements, which change the composition of the PSNI, will bring us to the point where the PSNI is not only representative of but wholly supported by all of the communities represented throughout Northern Ireland. They will do so more quickly and more effectively than any of the other arrangements proposed today. It is on that basis that we continue to support 50:50, notwithstanding the representations that have been made about the grief that it causes to those who fail in the recruitment process. I hope that the Committee will reject the new clauses. Indeed, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister is right when she says that we have had one of our best and liveliest debates so far. The two proposals, although different in their effect, both proceed upon the same basic premise: the 50:50 recruitment procedure is fundamentally wrong and obnoxious. The Minister talked of the progress that has been made. I fear that she over-eggs the pudding ever so slightly. Yes, a great deal of progress has been made in relation to the recruitment of Roman Catholics into the PSNI, but that is a reflection of the increasing normality of life in Northern Ireland. A full range of people are now prepared to take on board serving their community in the police service in a way that is considered normal on this side of the Irish sea.
 By continuing to insist on this highly artificial and, to a large part of the community, obnoxious device, the Government undermine and diminish their achievement and the achievement of others, such as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, in bringing a degree of normality to the community and to the policing of the community in Northern Ireland. I do not believe for one second that any member of the Roman Catholic community will join the police simply because the device is available to them through the overall engineering of targets. They will join the PSNI if they feel that they have some stake in it, and if they can do so without intimidation from the IRA and other paramilitary organisations. That is the achievement. The Minister should be proud of that, and she should have rather more confidence than she appears to have by continuing to cling to a highly artificial device. 
 We have had two parallel debates. When I moved the new clause that stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) I said that it was a messy compromise. Others have pointed out various flaws in it. I do not seek to run away from them. I think that arguably there might be a degree of flexibility that is not present in the current system. The Minister referred to the fact that only 0.64 per cent. of current applicants were from this non-determined category. That is a fairly meaningless statistic when the system as it is set up forces everyone to be in one of two camps. 
 I lived for several years in Glasgow, where the issue of whether one is a Protestant or a Catholic is still very much alive. I worked for several years in the licensed trade and in hotels and I overheard many conversations that always came back to the question, ''Are you a Catholic or a Protestant?'' Any attempt to avoid the question by answering, ''I am an atheist'' would be met with, ''Are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?'' There has been some fudging of such distinctions in the present system.

John Taylor: Perhaps I may make the inquiry in code: in the years that the hon. Gentleman lived in Glasgow, did he support Rangers or Celtic?

Alistair Carmichael: I am a member of the Liberal Democrats, and so I supported Partick Thistle. It is the third way and is rising in splendour and improving every year. However, to be less coded, the hon. Gentleman may be aware that I am an elder in the Church of Scotland.
 The approach of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann made me slightly uncomfortable, and my discomfort grew as I listened to the exchange between the hon. Members for Spelthorne and for Glasgow, Cathcart. That was because what is being suggested puts inordinate policy-making power into the hands of the Chief Constable. That makes me uneasy. When we talk about big policy issues, we should remember that the job of the Chief Constable is to implement the policy that politicians give him, not to be its author. 
 The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) made several points about the number of competitions there have been since section 46 was introduced. He said that that was unacceptable and shameful, and that is the point to which I return time and time again. There is no getting away from it. The Minister drew our attention to the fact that they are temporary provisions and reminded us that the matter will be visited again in Committee in March of next year. I can hardly wait. 
 However, Patten envisaged that competitions would last for 10 years. For a young person who wishes to join the police service, 10 years is a generation. People in that generation will feel aggrieved at having being denied the opportunities that they feel they have the merit to meet. That is why the Liberal Democrats feel that the 50:50 approach is wrong. I am mindful that time is marching on, and I do not wish to delay the Committee further in long Divisions. Accordingly, after discussions with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, I shall withdraw my new clause on the understanding that his will be moved formally and that there will be a Division after all the points have been aired. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 2 - Removal of discrimination from recruitment

'(1) In Part 6 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c.32) for section 46 substitute— 
 ''Underrepresentation 
 (1) In making appointments under section 39 the Chief Constable may take such steps as he determines appropriate to encourage applications by persons currently under-represented in the Police Service. 
 (2) In making appointments to the police support staff under section 4(3) the Chief Constable (acting by virtue of subsection (5) of that section) may take such steps as he determines appropriate to encourage applications by persons currently under-represented in the police support staff. 
 (3) For the purposes of this section ''persons currently underrepresented'' means persons forming part of a social group by virtue of their sex, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation who at the time of consideration by the Chief Constable are under-represented''. 
 (2) In Part 6 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, leave out section 47.'.—[Mr. Trimble.]
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 5 - Time limit on investigations by the Ombudsman

'After section 63 of the 1998 Act there shall be inserted— 
 63A Time limits on historic investigations 
 (1) The Ombudsman shall not investigate any complaint made to him under section 52(1) or any matter referred to him under section 52(1), 55(1), (2), or (4) if the actions, behaviour or conduct to which the matter relates took place more than 12 months before the date on which the reference is made. 
 (2) The Ombudsman shall not at any time commence a formal investigation under section 55(6) of any matters if the actions or behaviour to which the matter relates took place more than 12 months before that time.''.'.—[Mr. Trimble.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

David Trimble: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The new clause was largely inspired by clause 12, which empowers the police ombudsman to investigate current police practices and policies. I note that the Government clearly confined the ombudsman's role under clause 12 to dealing with current matters, an approach with which I heartily concur. I have not had the opportunity to check the report that led to the creation of a police ombudsman, but I am sure that it was not in the minds of those who decided upon such a role that it would be appropriate for her to conduct inquiries into events that occurred a long time ago. In principle, that is undesirable, but regrettably she has done so. Indeed, one of her first inquiries was into events that occurred some 30 years ago. That is quite wrong. 
 The provision has to be seen in the light of the negotiations that led to the Belfast Agreement. During those negotiations, the question of whether we should follow the South African practice and have a Truth and Reconciliation Commission was canvassed. I and my colleagues took the view, as did others, that that would be undesirable. We acknowledged—everyone knows it—that during the past 30 years quite a few terrible things had happened, and that a large number of members of the community had been injured or victimised by events; but we said that, having agreed upon new structures and procedures, and having agreed a settlement, it was necessary that the settlement should be allowed to bed in, and to be broadly accepted. 
 We felt that the settlement would not bed in if people had the opportunity to pick and scratch at all 
 the sores in the body politic that had been occasioned over the past 30 years. Consequently, the greater number of those involved in the negotiations took the very conscious decision that we should not go back and revisit all the things that had happened in the past. Yes, we have to have concern for victims; and, yes, things should be done for victims—and things have been done for them. However, to allow people somehow to re-run all the arguments of the past 30 years, to give people a means of settling whatever scores they believed still had to be settled, would be wrong in practice. 
 That is one of the reasons why some of us have been so critical of the Government's decision to institute inquiries such as that now sitting in Londonderry. That inquiry has raked up at least £100 million in court costs—the costs are likely to exceed £200 million by the time that it is finished—but it is a wholly misconceived approach, which is doing nothing to encourage reconciliation in the community. But that is by the way. 
 I mention that simply to make the point that we considered it best to draw a line, and to persuade the community to move on. In that context, it would be wrong for the police ombudsman to go back into the past; she has done so once, and she may do so again. We entirely approve of the approach adopted by the Government in clause 12, whereby the ombudsman will be directed to deal solely with current matters. We think that that should be the case with regard to other complaints received by the ombudsman. That is the reason for new clause 5. 
 The new clause would limit the ombudsman to dealing with complaints relating to matters that have taken place within the last 12 months. That is a reasonable and adequate period for all those who believe that they have suffered as a result of an abuse of police powers. Indeed, some might feel that 12 months is a bit generous, and that if people want to pursue a complaint they should do so within 12 months of the incident. It is obviously a matter of balance as to how far back one should go, and we chose 12 months. 
 I raise the issue in order to direct the Government's attention to the matter. I suggest that, having adopted such an admirable approach in clause 12, they should be consistent and apply the principle elsewhere.

David Wilshire: In principle, I support what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann has proposed. However, I am not sure that 12 months is an appropriate time limit. It could be argued that a two-year period would be necessary to enable people to collate enough evidence to justify what they are doing. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not want to go to the stake for the sake of 12 months; he has certainly made the point.
 The right hon. Gentleman might also have addressed the fact—perhaps he will reflect on it on Report—that not only is it sensible to say that there has to be a time limit that starts from the date on which the complaint is made, but there is still an opportunity to delay the procedure for a huge length of time in the hope that something else might turn up 
 that would be handy to the investigation. I support not only a time limit backwards from the point of making the complaint, but a limit on how long a person making a complaint can work at keeping the file open by saying that more information will be supplied before the investigation can be completed. There could well be a time limit within which the ombudsman has to complete the investigation. I commend that to the right hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right. 
 The role of the ombudsman is to address, for the future, the sort of complaints that have been made in the past, relating to minor issues, rather than Bloody Sunday-type issues. I understand the Government to have stated that the ombudsman should be a safeguard for the future of the Northern Ireland police service. However, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that intention has already been changed into something entirely different—the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was given as an example. Had the intention in creating the role of ombudsman been that that person would play the role of the president or chairman of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Government should have said so at the time and we could have debated the matter. 
 If the Government accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument that that is not the way to proceed and that it is sensible to draw a line in the sand to show that what had happened in the past was dreadful but it had happened, so it was time to move on, I would have though that they should accept the new clause in principle, even if they want to debate the length of time that is specified. That would put it beyond all doubt that the purpose of the ombudsman is to secure the future of the Northern Ireland Police Service rather than to provide yet another vehicle for raking over the past. 
 I have watched events in South Africa with amazement and interest and can see the value for some people in the approach taken in that country. However, I have also looked at what has happened in respect of the investigations into what happened in Londonderry all those years ago—at the moment the only beneficiaries are the lawyers, and I suspect that at the end of the day the only significant beneficiaries will be recipients of the £200 million in fees run up by the legal profession. 
 You might be interested to know, Mr. Amess, that at one stage I tried to rent a flat in County hall across the river to help me do my job here, only to discover that virtually every single available flat had been taken, at exorbitant rents with no negotiations, by lawyers who were coming across to appear at Methodist central hall. Some of the inflation in rent was due to an inquiry. 
 That illustrates my point. What good that is supposed to do to truth and reconciliation, I do not know. It is good for the landlords over there and it is good for the lawyers who are across the way arguing. All that it has done, and all that it will do, if the ombudsman goes down the same route, is that the moment that the Bloody Sunday thing gets out of hand someone will come along and say, ''We must have something about the Omagh bombing.'' We will have to do the same thing all over again. There will 
 almost be a bidding war to see who can spend the most on which inquiry. 
 I cannot believe for one minute that that is what the Government intended for the role of the ombudsman. If the Government agree with that argument, I suggest that there is a way of making it absolutely clear once and for all that the ombudsman is about the future of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and not yet another vehicle for raking over things that are probably best left buried in the past. I do not believe that we will make progress or improve the situation in Northern Ireland by endlessly raking over the past. However, I do think that we will make progress by making sure that the future is safeguarded, and the new clause goes in exactly in the right direction.

Jane Kennedy: We do not accept the need for new clause 5, because the point is already covered in regulations. The general principle, set out in the RUC (Complaints etc) Regulations 2001, is that it is a requirement that a complaint is about the conduct of a member of the police service
''which took place not more than 12 months before the date on which the complaint is made.''
 However, there are three exceptions to that general principle, and those three exceptions, where they are demonstrated, allow the ombudsman to investigate an allegation of an incident that may have taken place some time previous to that 12 months. 
 It might assist the Committee if I briefly spell out the three exceptions. First, if there has been a delay in complaining, if it appears that a criminal or disciplinary offence has been committed or if the complaint is not the same or substantially the same as a previous one, the ombudsman may investigate if she considers that justified by exceptional circumstances or the gravity of the matter. Secondly, she may take on a case even if it has been dealt with before if there is new evidence and it appears that a criminal or disciplinary offence has been committed, and, again, that the matter is grave or exceptional. 
 Thirdly, even if the grave or exceptional test is not met, the ombudsman may take on a case where she believes that the officer may have committed a criminal offence if the complaint has not been dealt with before or if new evidence has come to light. The proposal tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann would remove those exceptions. Investigations, therefore, are already confined to complaints about incidents that are no more than 12 months old, unless the exceptions apply. 
 The great value of the office of the police ombudsman is to build confidence in the police service of today, not continually to rake over the coals of the past. The right hon. Gentleman is right on that point. From my contact with the ombudsman, I believe that she shares that view. The office is not a truth commission. It is, however, a mechanism for ensuring the proper investigation of complaints and for ensuring transparency and justice. 
 I know that the ombudsman and her staff fully recognise the vital role that they have to play by securing the confidence of the public and of members of the police service. It is appropriate to pay tribute to 
 the work of the ombudsman's staff in successfully operating a completely new and independent police complaints system that has been functioning for just over two years. 
 The Government agree with the general principle articulated in new clause 5. Indeed, it has already been established in regulations, but the principle is in the regulations, subject to the exceptions, which we believe are important. Therefore, we do not believe that the amendment is appropriate or necessary.

David Trimble: I thank the Minister for her contribution, but I still believe that such an amendment is appropriate and necessary. It will be ineffectual to rely purely on the regulations, as they are subject to exceptions that are drawn in such a way that the ombudsman, if so minded, would have no difficulty in pursuing any matter whatever. She merely has to say that she considers that an offence might have been committed. The other exceptions are couched in such broad terms that they could easily be exploited in the circumstances.
 I am heartened that the Government consider my approach to be right in principle. I urge them, therefore, to examine the regulations more carefully and to consider whether it would not be much better to write such an approach into primary legislation rather than relying on regulations that are so widely drawn that they have not prevented the ombudsman from raking over a case that is more than 30 years old. There is a danger that that might happen again, and in circumstances in which the ombudsman feels like getting a little more publicity. I do not share the Minister's confidence in the system and it is appropriate for those matters to be covered in primary legislation. I want to return to them on Report, however, as they should be discussed again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 6 - Membership of district policing partnerships

'.—In paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c.32) (Political members) after subparagraph (1) insert— 
 ''(1A) Notwithstanding subparagraph (1) above no person may be appointed as a political member who has not renounced violence and ended all links with any organisation that has not yet disposed of all its weapons and explosives.''.'.—[Mr. Wilshire.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

David Wilshire: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New clause 7—Disqualification from membership of district policing partnerships— 
'.—In paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c.32) (Political members) after subparagraph (5)(c) insert— 
 ''(d) he is convicted of a terrorist related offence; 
 (e) he is found to have links to a terrorist organisation.''.'.

David Wilshire: The new clauses relate to schedule 3 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and district policing partnerships—DPPs, in the jargon that the Government like to use—which we have not yet had the opportunity to get our heads around. In a DPP, a local council is required to set up what everyone, including me, would probably want to call a committee, although calling it something else seems to suit Northern Ireland. That committee would consist of 15, 17 or 19 members,
''as the council may determine'',
 as it says in paragraph 2(1) of schedule 3 to the 2000 Act. Paragraph 2(3) says how that will be done: 
''Where a DPP consists of 15 members, of whom— 
 (a) 8 shall be appointed by the council from among members of the council in accordance with paragraph 3.''
 A minimum of eight people are therefore appointed in accordance with paragraph 2(3). If the numbers increase, the figure could be nine or 10. 
 Paragraph 3 relates to what the Act calls political members. Paragraph 3(1) states: 
''A council shall exercise its power to appoint political members of the DPP so as to ensure that, so far as practicable, the political members reflect the balance of parties prevailing among the members of the council immediately after the last local general election.'' 
Some councils in the Province have Sinn Fein-IRA members and, so far as I am aware, there are also councils with one or two members who are loyalist paramilitary apologists. 
 The Act therefore requires the appointment to DPPs of members of a political party that is totally bound to an armed terrorist organisation that has yet to disarm. I wait to see what the Government have managed to achieve by giving them even more concessions so that they might relinquish a few more arms and explosives. 
 The policing partnerships are required to appoint armed terrorists, or apologists for armed terrorists, who show almost no inclination to cease their terrorism as a means to achieve what they want, irrespective of the wish of the majority. Under the 2000 Act, those people can—indeed, must—be appointed to an oversight role in relation to the PSNI, which is the very body that is required to try to put such people out of business. That is utterly perverse. It is to put the criminal in charge of the organisation that exists to hound the criminal. It is to put the terrorists in charge of people who are trying to eliminate terrorism. I have never believed that that is acceptable. There should be no place for terrorists or apologists for terrorists in any democratic organisation until they have given up terrorism. Even then, I would have my doubts.

Paul Goodman: Will my hon. Friend explain whether any political member of Sinn Fein or, say, the Progressive Unionist party, is automatically a political member who has not renounced violence? Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that a member of one of those parties claimed that he or she had renounced violence. What proof would my hon. Friend accept to show that that was so?

David Wilshire: Whatever politicians say or do, if they admit to belonging—they do so proudly in most cases—to the political wing of a terrorist organisation, whatever they want to call it, there is no point trying to hide and saying, ''Oh well, we are only the politicians.''
 As far as I am concerned, Sinn Fein and the IRA are one and the same, and always have been. Any political party that sells itself as the political wing of a terrorist organisation is, by my definition, bound up in that terrorist organisation. Let us say that that terrorist organisation is still armed, shooting people, setting fire to houses and chasing people out of Northern Ireland. If that is still going on, as it is, it is terrorism, and the people to whom I am referring are part and parcel of that terrorist organisation. 
 That is how I see the situation, if that helps my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman). Others would draw a distinction, but I tend to say that it is by their deeds that we know people. I have never heard a member of a so-called independent political party that is attached to a terrorist organisation, on whichever side of the fence, denounce unequivocally the atrocities committed by the armed part of that political party. I am therefore clear in my mind, whereas others might not be. 
 What I have described has always seemed to me to be a totally unacceptable state of affairs. New clause 6 seeks only to clear that up once and for all—to me at least, it is self-evident that it needs to be added to the Bill. Paragraph 3(1) of schedule 3 to the 2000 Act says: 
''A council shall exercise its power to appoint political members''.
 Where it ends, the new clause would add proposed new sub-paragraph (1A), which states: 
''Notwithstanding subparagraph (1) above no person may be appointed as a political member who has not renounced violence and ended all links with any organisation that has not yet disposed of all its weapons and explosives.''
 The proposal is simple and straightforward. Someone in Northern Ireland, or elsewhere in the world for that matter, may say that it is unreasonable, unfair and no way to bring troubles to an end, but if those people have no further need for terrorism and if they do not intend their politics to involve returning to the guns and explosives that they have hidden away should they be unable to get their own way through the ballot box, it is simple and straightforward to say that they renounce all that and break all their links with the past. 
 If a politician will not do that, we are entitled to draw the conclusion that they are still prepared to use terrorism to get their own way. If we draw that conclusion, it is intolerable for such people to have oversight of or partnership arrangements with the police service, whether in Northern Ireland or anywhere else. We would not contemplate allowing unreformed bank robbers to be involved in a committee with the Metropolitan police on the oversight of the serious crime unit at Scotland Yard. We would see that as preposterous, and anyone who suggested it would be seen as a fool. 
 In Northern Ireland, however, such things are allowed in the name of progress. If violence is over, 
 why are people still clinging on and demanding to be let into the process without making that crucial step? New clause 6 spells that out, and it would allow people to say once and for all whether they are democrats or terrorists. That is all I ask: which side is someone on? That question should be straightforward for everyone to answer. If there is no answer, one can assume only that people are hanging on to their guns for a reason. 
 New clause 7 flows from new clause 6. Paragraph 3(5) of schedule 3 to the 2000 Act says: 
''A political member shall cease to hold office if— 
 (a) he resigns by notice in writing to the council; 
 (b) he becomes disqualified for membership of the DPP; or 
 (c) he ceases to be a member of the council.''
 I would not imagine that anyone wants to quarrel with those provisions, but I suggest that the list is incomplete. New clause 7 would add two further reasons why a person should cease to hold office: 
''(d) he is convicted of a terrorist related offence; 
 (e) he is found to have links to a terrorist organisation.'' 
I have no doubt that the lawyers in Committee could endlessly pick holes in my choice of words, so I am not wedded to the specific phrasing. However, what I am driving at should be clear: if someone is appointed having passed the requirements that I suggest and having severed their links with terrorism, but is subsequently convicted of a terrorist-related offence, even if that offence is from the past, they should be disqualified. 
 I am aware that some will say that we should live and let live and allow terrorists into our political organisations. I am just about able to stomach the idea of admitting apologists for terrorism, but I am not able to say that someone's involvement in a terrorist organisation in the past should not be taken into account. A criminal conviction in Great Britain bars a person from all sorts of activity. In my judgment, a terrorism conviction should bar people from dealing with the police in the way suggested. I am well aware of what I am saying. Past and future convictions should be taken into account. 
 The second proposal is also straightforward. If such a person is found to have links with a terrorist organisation having renounced it, they should cease to be a member due to all the arguments that I have given. 
 I have felt strongly about the provisions for a long time. I realise that people whom I would count among my friends in Northern Ireland would say that I am being unrealistic and that we should live and let live. I understand and respect that, but I have always baulked at the thought of murderers, maimers and torturers being allowed into such a process. I have felt that for a long time, and adding the two new clauses would make a lasting settlement in Northern Ireland more likely, rather than undermine what has been going on.

John Taylor: It is difficult to add much to what my hon. Friend has just said. He dealt with the new clauses convincingly, comprehensively and with conviction. He and I have experience of local government in England, and we remember that
 police forces were originally scrutinised by watch committees, which kept an eye on them and dealt with various matters. In the England and Wales jurisdiction—I know more about England—magistrates comprised a significant part of the membership of the watch committees. Magistrates hold an office for which I have a high regard. Going back some 800 years, they have always discharged their duties as justices of the peace, properly keeping the Queen's peace. The lay magistracy is the jewel in the crown of the English judicial system, and it deals with some 94 per cent. of criminal disposals.
 Northern Ireland suffers from a proliferation of bodies, commissions, ombudsmen and boards. All of us who sympathise with Northern Ireland and would like the Province to enjoy a peaceful and prosperous climate beg leave to doubt whether its problems can be solved by the reflex appointment of yet more public bodies and officials. I have said in other contexts that whatever the deficiencies of normal life might be in Northern Ireland, it is not afflicted by a shortage of official bodies. There is a proliferation rather than a deficiency. 
 We see the tripartite arrangement between the Secretary of State—mirroring the role of the Home Secretary in Great Britain—the Chief Constable and the Policing Board. Beyond that, there is the police ombudsman. I quarrel with none of those arrangements, nor will I detain the Committee by rehearsing the remarks that I made at an earlier stage on the importance of the equilibrium of the tripartite arrangement and not shifting too far from the Secretary of State or the Chief Constable towards the Policing Board. 
 We come then to district policing partnerships. The view that I am articulating is my own, and not necessarily the official policy of my party. There are a lot of local authorities in Northern Ireland, as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann can confirm, and there are historic reasons for that. If every one is to be matched by a DPP, the opportunities will multiply for those who want to investigate, investigate and investigate the police. 
 You may remember, Mr. Amess, the speech made on Second Reading by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). It was candid, and based upon his considerable experience as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He said: 
''A police service that is constantly at risk of being inquired into and investigated, with its policies and actions questioned and challenged, its judgments called into question, and its practices constantly put under a microscope by the accountability bodies—and, for the Police Service of Northern Ireland, there is more than one such body—cannot easily get on with the job of policing.''—[Official Report, 10 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 682.]
 I entirely agree with that sentiment.

David Amess: Order. The Committee is listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I draw his attention closely to the precise detail of new clauses 6 and 7. He should confine his remarks to those two new clauses.

John Taylor: I am grateful to you, Mr. Amess. Inasmuch as I have strayed, I have done straying. There will be no more straying.
 I return to the wording of the new clauses of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. He wants to add the circumstances in which a person 
''is convicted of a terrorist related offence''
 to the list of grounds for disqualification from service. That would follow on from paragraph (5)(c) of schedule 3 of the 2000 Act, which says that disqualification follows cessation of membership of the council. I would hope that a failure under the proposed new sub-paragraph (d) would also be a failure under existing sub-paragraph (c). If an individual were convicted of a terrorist-related offence, he ought to be disqualified from serving on the council. He would come off the district policing partnership on two grounds. 
 I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion by leaving the Committee with my lingering doubt as to whether DPPs are just one more accountability institution, or even, I suggest, an accountability institution too far. There are so many, and so much mischief could be made with all the opportunities for inquiring into the police and their activities.

Paul Goodman: This is the first chance that I have had to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Amess, although by this time in the afternoon we are nearer to the hour when, alas, you have to quit the Chair and we have to end our sitting, than to the moment at which you arrived.
 On new clause 7, I wish to pick up a theme that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne developed from the Opposition Front Bench, in anticipation of an argument that the Minister might make. Although my hon. Friend is welcome to correct me if I am mistaken, I think that he believes that no one who has been or is in future either convicted of a terrorist-related offence or found to have links with a terrorist organisation should continue to sit on a DPP. 
 In general—although I stress in general—I think that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. However, I am not sure that the way in which new clause 7 is constructed is completely consistent with how he advanced his excellent case, because the exact words of the proposed new sub-paragraphs are: 
''he is convicted of a terrorist related offence''
 and 
''he is found to have links to a terrorist organisation.''
 Under the strict terms of that wording, I would read new clause 7 to mean that a member of, say, Sinn Fein or, for the sake of argument, the Progressive Unionist party, who had previously served a terrorist-related offence, would be allowed to sit on a DPP. That would also apply to a member of Sinn Fein or, again for the sake of argument, the PUP, who had previously been found to have links with a terrorist organisation. However, it is surely the case that at the moment when such a person were found to be convicted of a terrorist related offence or to have links with a terrorist organisation, the provisions of new clause 7 would kick in. The proposed sub-paragraphs (d) and (e) 
 would be a wholly appropriate addition to paragraph 3 of schedule 3 of the 2000 Act. 
 I hope that the Minister will not argue that new clause 7 covers those who have previously been convicted of a terrorist related offence or those who have previously had links with a terrorist organisation, and that she will not argue that it would be unreasonable for them to be excluded from DPPs under the clause, because I do not think that the words of the clause are to that effect. 
 The Minister may wish to argue that the wording of the clause is unnecessary or that she would perhaps be prepared—I will wait to hear what she says—to have members sitting on DPPs who have been convicted of terrorist-related offences or who have present links to terrorist organisations. However, I do not think that she could use the argument that the wording of new clause 7 suggests that those who have been convicted of terrorist-related offences or who have had links with terrorist organisations would be barred from serving on DPPs by the new clause.

Alistair Carmichael: I have a couple of brief thoughts that I want to share with the Committee. When we discussed the previous new clause, in the name of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, the hon. Member for Spelthorne advanced and supported the argument that the backward-looking aspects of the ombudsman's office should be curtailed because lines should be drawn in the sand, if I might put it like that, and that the extent to which one went back into the past and was prepared to unearth things was something that should be limited. That line found favour with the Minister, although the actual terms of the proposal did not.
 To be consistent, we should be prepared to apply the same approach here. The reality is that many people who have in the past sought to influence the course of events in Northern Ireland through undemocratic and violent means—which I deplore—will, if they are to be included in future, seek to do that through legitimate means. That means election to bodies like the legislative Assembly or to the House. of Commons. If we are to allow them into the legislative Assembly and into the House, how can see seek to exclude them from other aspects of civil society in Northern Ireland? I feel that there is a certain inconsistency in that argument. 
 My other concern, which relates more to the second of the two proposed new clauses, is that the reference to having 
''links to a terrorist organisation''
 is vague and open to abuse in many ways. It might be that somebody who has renounced violence will still have links with an organisation because they may still know many of their former comrades. They may wish to maintain those links in order to persuade those with whom they previously engaged in an armed struggle to renounce that activity. Is the purpose of the new clause to exclude those people with links to a terrorist organisation? 
 If I were to be particularly picky about that, I might say that what we should really be considering is a relevant terrorist organisation. In the bad old days of 
 apartheid in South Africa, I and, I suspect, many others on the Committee, had links with the African National Congress, which many might have considered to be a terrorist organisation. Would that have excluded me from membership of a DPP? I think that the point can be seen that the wording is on the loose side.

Jane Kennedy: The Committee might be surprised to learn that I am not going to use any of the arguments suggested by the hon. Members for Wycombe and for Orkney and Shetland. I agree with the new clause; I have no problem with the sentiments behind it. However, the provisions that it seeks to apply are already defined elsewhere in the law. The Committee will know that the political members of DPPs are nominated by local councils from among their members. Under the terms of the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Act 1972, as amended by the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, all of those standing for election for local councils must, as part of their nomination to stand, make a declaration against terrorism. The text of that declaration is set out in part 1 of schedule 2 to the 1989 Act, and it is not very different from the wording suggested by the hon. Member for Spelthorne.
 That means that the pool of people from whom the political members of DPPs can be nominated must already have made a declaration against terrorism. With other safeguards, which I shall come to, that addresses sufficiently the point that is made in new clause 6. 
 Turning to new clause 7, I agree that the disqualifications proposed are valid. However, I do not believe that they are necessary because those points are dealt with by the provisions of paragraph 3(5)(c) and paragraph 7 of schedule 3 to the 2000 Act, which has been referred to by others. I shall deal first with paragraph 3(5)(c). That provides that a political member of a DPP shall cease to hold that office if he ceases to be a member of the council. An individual could cease to be a member of the local authority for a number of reasons. Specifically, under the electoral legislation from which I quoted, there is provision for a councillor to be removed from office if he or she dishonours his or her declaration against terrorism by publicly expressing support for acts of terrorism, or for a proscribed organisation. He or she is taken to have done so if his or her words or actions could reasonably be understood as expressing support for or approval of that action.

Gregory Campbell: Will the Minister outline her response to the accusation that is frequently made in Northern Ireland that members of Sinn Fein have been on local councils since 1985, so they have been subject for 18 years to the precise exclusion that she has outlined. Has it ever been tested by the Government?

Jane Kennedy: I may be wrong, but I should not have thought that it would be a matter for the Government to remove them. The disqualification clause should apply, but it should be tested on an individual basis. An individual would not have been deemed to be in breach of his declaration if the actions of somebody else were to be held against him. One
 could not, for example, brand all members of Sinn Fein if one individual were accused of the sort of actions to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

David Trimble: The point that was being made was that the enforcement provisions in the legislation to which the Minister refers are defective in that they require private citizens to enforce them. It was pointed out when the legislation was debated that that is an unreasonable burden to put on private citizens and that it is precisely the sort of thing that Government ought to do. On occasion, over the past few years, elected representatives have behaved in a way that would imply—or even be evidence of—support for paramilitary organisations, such as appearing on platforms at rallies organised by such organisations, but no action has been taken because the enforcement provisions in the legislation place no obligation on government to enforce the undertaking. That is the flaw in the Minister's argument. If the declarations were enforced by the Government, the Minister's words would carry some weight, but they are not.

Jane Kennedy: The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for East Londonderry make the valid point that the legislation has never been acted on. Is it not fair to say, however, that it is entirely down to a member of the public to take action? A member of the public can draw to the council's attention any breach of the provisions, and it would then be for the council to go to court. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman both said that the provisions were failing, but the measures contained in the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Spelthorne are already contained in statute. As it stands, if a case were ever brought, the eventual decision would be a matter for the court. Therefore, legislation already provides for councillors who act in such a way to be removed from their position on the local council. If that happens, they automatically cease to hold office as a member of a district policing partnership, as the hon. Member for Wycombe said.
 Paragraph 7 of schedule 3 of the 2000 Act sets out a series of grounds on which members of the district policing partnerships, both independent and political, may be removed from office by the board or the council, with the approval of the board. Grounds include being convicted of a criminal offence or being otherwise unable or unfit to discharge their functions as a member of the DPP. Those provisions, taken with the provisions in the electoral legislation, deal, to a large extent, with the points raised by new clause 7. 
 We understand, and are sympathetic to, the thinking behind the two new clauses. I take on board the points that have been made about the effectiveness of the current provisions, and perhaps we need to consider that further, but we believe that the points raised are adequately dealt with by existing legislation.

David Wilshire: I have listened with care to the Minister. If the Minister agrees with me about new clause 6, she should, just for once, go for a belt-and-braces operation, and let me win the argument. We
 have heard the arguments about why the legislation on which the Minister would prefer to rely is not as robust as it should be. So if she agrees with my suggestion, and if there is a case that her preferred method is not as robust as it should be, she has made my case for me and should welcome new clause 6 with open arms. I am happy to give way to her if she wants to say that she has changed her mind or will table an alternative new clause. I thought that she would shake her head—it was just a little too much to hope for. I have been grafting away in Committee for some time now and have made no progress at all—such is the nature of opposition. I am at least grateful that, on this occasion, the Minister admits that my suggestion goes in the right direction.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe will go far. He listens carefully to everything that I say, which will stand him in good stead, because as long as he listens carefully, he will not make the mistake of repeating what I say. He is right. I did not make myself as clear as I should have done. I know what I was trying to say, but I patently failed. The easier problem to sort out is the distinction between ''has links'' and ''had links''. New clause 7 is supposed to refer to having links now and in the future, not to look back to the past. I hope that Hansard will confirm that I said what I thought I said; that I can just about cope with apologists for terrorism from the past. If someone had links with terrorists, rather than was a terrorist, I would be in favour of drawing a line under that. 
 On reflection, I accept that the wording 
''is convicted of a terrorist related offence''
 really means is convicted in future. To that extent, my hon. Friend was right. I hope that I made it clear that I should have worded the new clause in such a way as to deal with people who had been convicted in the past, although the wording does not say that. 
 The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland believes that he has seized on an inconsistency in my argument. I do not believe that it is raking backwards. It would be raking backwards to suggest that we examine the past conduct of a member of the DPP to see whether we could find something that amounted to a criminal offence. All I am saying is that when someone is convicted of something, that conviction travels with that person from the past to the present and into the future. A convicted terrorist is a convicted terrorist on conviction and in the present. I realise that I am saying that I cannot cope if someone has been convicted of a terrorist offence in the past, I am sorry.

Alistair Carmichael: Recognise my sin but not my repentance.

David Wilshire: If it was not this hour and we were not in Committee, I would be happy to enter into a conversation with an elder of the Church of Scotland on the significance of repentance. The hon. Gentleman may be able to modify my views if he works hard enough for long enough, but I do not think that you want us to become philosophical or theological on these matters, Mr. Amess. I simply wanted to clarify what I meant for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe. If people believe me to be wrong, that is their privilege, which I respect.
 I listened carefully to the Minister. She will not give way on the points on which I am right, and says that there are adequate safeguards in relation to new clause 7. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 8 - Economy in functions of the Board

No. NC8, to move the following Clause:— 
 '.—In section 3(2) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (function of the Board to secure efficiency and effectiveness) omit ''and effective'' and insert '', effective and economic with their use of public funds''.'.—[Mr. Wilshire.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

David Wilshire: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 This debate need not take us anything like as long as the debate on new clause 7. Section 3 of the 2000 Act deals with what appears to be an uncontentious issue. It states: 
''The Board shall secure the maintenance of the police in Northern Ireland . . . The Board shall secure that— 
 (a) the police, 
 (b) the police support staff, and 
 (c) traffic wardens appointed by the Board under section 71, are efficient and effective.''
 Any hon. Members, and certainly any members of the Committee, who have been round the local government course over the years will have had drummed into them the three Es: efficiency, effectiveness and economicness. [Laughter.] I accept that it is not economicness, but Hansard will put it right for me. It is late in the day. Economy is the word that I wanted. I am grateful to the lawyers who can keep me on the straight and narrow. Irrespective of what the words were, there were three of them, and they all began with E. I hope that the Minister will readily accept that we want an efficient and effective police service, not one that is free to waste money. Under the 2000 Act, there is no requirement on the NIPS to be efficient and effective in the cheapest way. It can do things in any way and still comply with the legislation. All I seek to do is to remember the taxpayers of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, and to suggest that there should be no tax increase in the forthcoming Budget to hammer on to the British public the cost for everything that the Government want to be done and for the uneconomic way of running the PSNI.

Jane Kennedy: Again, this is one of those occasions when I can say that we do not support the new clause, but not because we disagree with its sentiments. Of course the board should have regard to the need to make economic use of public funds, but another part of the Act already deals with that obligation. Members of the Committee will know from our discussions on other matters in the first sitting that part 5 of the 2000 Act contains provisions that relate to the three Es—economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It states:
''The Board shall make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions, and those of the Chief Constable, are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.''
 That is done through the board's performance plan, which is published annually. 
 Sections 29 to 31 set out the arrangements for auditing and enforcing the duty. I see a distinction between that important procedural duty—it applies to the board but obviously has great implications for the Chief Constable, too—and the obligation on the board in section 3(2). The latter section deals primarily with the board's obligation to ensure that a body of people are in place who can undertake their operational duties efficiently and effectively. In the operational context, the duty to make the best use of public funds is encompassed in the word ''efficient''. There are only two key words in the relevant phrase. The board's concern as part of its general function is to ensure that the police operate efficiently and effectively. Its functions under part 5 of the 2000 Act are additional to, not inconsistent with, the general functions. 
 It may be worth noting in passing that the equivalent provisions for England and Wales, which are set out in section 6(1) of the Police Act 1996, also refer to a duty to ensure 
''the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force''.
 Police authorities in England and Wales are already subject to the best value provisions like those in part 5. 
 The new clause is unnecessary. The board is already required, under section 28 of the 2000 Act, to have regard to the economic use of public funds in both its and the Chief Constable's functions. Its general function under section 3 is consistent with that, but is focused primarily on the operational role of the police.

David Wilshire: I know when I am beaten. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 9 - Amalgamation of police districts

'.—In section 20 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (police districts) insert after subsection (2)— 
 ''(2A) The Chief Constable may, for operational reasons and with the approval of the Board, amalgamate two or more police districts''.'.—[Mr. Wilshire.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

David Wilshire: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 Let us see whether I can win one. Again, this is something very different. Section 20 of the 2000 Act relates to police districts. Section 21 states: 
''Each district, other than Belfast, shall be a police district.''
 That seems hopelessly inefficient in theory. A Chief Constable, who is appointed to run the police service efficiently, as the Minister argued—let us leave aside whether that should include economy—may, as circumstances change, time goes by and techniques alter, decide for entirely operational reasons that the districts of Northern Ireland are too small for his management organisational structure. 
 One thing about Northern Ireland that always strikes me is that we have considered the boundaries of local government units in GB, but Northern Ireland 
 has managed to escape that process, and there are probably rather too many districts by GB standards. I know that that point is controversial, but we may well have to return to it. I have always argued that there is an alternative to devolved arrangements, which is to have a two-tier structure, involving a county council and a district council, that we would recognise in rural England. 
 The Chief Constable has no choice whatever but to have one police district for one local government district. It seems silly to be so restrictive. The new clause would merely give the Chief Constable, for operational reasons, the power to merge police districts if he thought that that was in the best interests of effective and efficient policing in Northern Ireland.

Tom Harris: I am pleased to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I just want to let him know that the Chief Constable, Hugh Orde, in discussions a couple of weeks ago with me and some of my colleagues—members of the parliamentary Labour party Northern Ireland committee—expressed concern that there were far too many policing districts. Does the hon. Gentleman consider that that might best be addressed by reorganising local government, rather than through a unilateral amalgamation by the Chief Constable?

David Wilshire: It might be. I would not count on a reorganisation of local government in Northern Ireland happening in the foreseeable future, but if the Chief Constable thinks that that is a good idea—[Interruption.] By saying that he agrees with me, the hon. Gentleman tempts me to push this to a Division to see which way he votes.

David Trimble: Several months ago, well in advance of suspension, we launched a review of public administration in Northern Ireland, part of which involved a review of local government with a view to considering—I choose my words carefully—the possibility of a reorganisation of local government. Precisely the sort of changes to which the hon. Gentleman refers might result from that review. He may like to bear in mind that it would have the rather curious consequence that if we decided to make some changes to local government structures we would as a side effect reorganise the police's internal structures. Those changes may be for reasons completely unconnected with operational policing decisions, yet the police's operational structures will change as a consequence whether they will it or not. That might not necessarily be in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness.

David Wilshire: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the answer that I should have given to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart. He is absolutely right. It would not necessarily be sensible to tell the police that they must structure along the existing lines if the politicians in Northern Ireland decided to have, let us say, only four districts outside Belfast. The Chief Constable could then say that he
 wanted more than four districts for his practical, efficient and effective policing. I would have to turn the argument back on itself and say that the Chief Constable ought to have the powers to subdivide a district. I am tempted to table another amendment on Report that the Chief Constable should be able to subdivide districts, knowing full well that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart will be in the same Lobby as me.

Tom Harris: A chill has just run down my spine at the prospect of being that much in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. I should point out for the record that I suggested an alternative proposal to what he proposes in the new clause.

David Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman is rowing back from his support of common sense. I am sorry to hear that. I believe that I have said enough—some might say more than enough—to make my point. I am always worried about the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland losing the will to live. He might just be doing that. I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

John Taylor: I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Amess, for calling me to speak on this important new clause. From my earlier remarks about the proliferation of accountability bodies in the policing of Northern Ireland, you will have gathered, and the Committee will have inferred, that I would be much relieved by a diminution of this proliferation and if amalgamations could reduce the number of DPPs, I would be greatly in favour. I certainly would not presume as an Englishman to say what those amalgamations should be. I fancy that with good will in Northern Ireland and under the supervision of the Chief Constable and with the approval of the board, this is a useful facility. It could reduce the DPPs to a much more manageable number. I express my support for the new clause in those terms.

Jane Kennedy: Nobody would be more delighted than I to see the right hon. Member for Upper Bann return with colleagues from other parties represented in this Committee to the Executive in Northern Ireland through a re-established Assembly. That would mean that the need for a security Minister would be diminished to the point of own redundancy. Even more importantly, the right hon. Gentleman could then pick up the important task to which he has referred, which is the review of the effectiveness of public administration. That might even encompass a review of local government. The responsibility, quite properly, would rest with local Ministers in that event.
 The primary consideration should be the need for robust accountability arrangements at a local level. Patten clearly recommended one district command for each district council area as well as one district policing partnership board for each district council and police district. Patten illustrated how the relationship between the police and the community could be enhanced and strengthened as well as made more effective by creating greater links between local government, local police and local policing partnerships. 
 Patten acknowledged, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart said, that the arrangements might not be ideal for resource management in smaller police districts, and the Chief Constable takes that view. However, the transparency and accountability of the new policing arrangements in Northern Ireland are our primary focus of concern at this stage. I cannot accept the new clause because it would dilute the level of local accountability, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion.

David Wilshire: I have listened carefully to the Minister. I shall accede because I do not want to embarrass the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart further. That is the real reason for failing to pursue the new clause. The Minister also makes a convincing case, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23 - Police powers for designated police support staff

David Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 127, in
clause 23, page 16, leave out line 7.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 128, in 
schedule 1, page 25, line 30, leave out paragraph 3.
 Amendment No. 129, in 
schedule 1, page 28, line 2, leave out paragraph 7.

David Wilshire: The clause brings us to the Chief Constable's ability to designate civilians to carry out certain jobs. I examined carefully the three sorts of jobs—investigating officer, detention officer and escort officer. In Great Britain, detention and escort officers are often civilians contracting to escort prisoners to and from remand centres, courts and so forth. Whenever I have visited local cells—I hasten to add in my capacity as a Member, not as a customer—I have always noticed civilians acting as detention officers. It is all perfectly sensible. I am less persuaded, however, that investigating officers should fall under the same category.

Stephen McCabe: On a serious note, if that is the hon. Gentleman's concern, will he acknowledge that scenes of crime officers, who in normal circumstances would be described as investigating officers, are almost invariably civilians in this country?

David Wilshire: Indeed, I was coming on to that point. The purpose of amendment No. 127 is to remove investigating officers from the list, not as a blanket provision, but to tease out how the Government view investigating officers in these circumstances. I see a world of difference between a technical, highly trained expert who carries out the sort of scientific activity to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and someone given the opportunity to act as a quasi police officer. Amendment No. 129 deals with powers of arrest. It could be argued that the other two categories within a police station have a power to arrest—that is how I read the legislation, and I doubt that the hon. Gentleman would expect a civilian scenes of crime officer to be given powers of arrest in Great
 Britain. On balance, I would not want them to have such powers.
 An investigating officer with powers of arrest who has access to excluded and special procedure material—amendment No. 128 states that they should not have such access—sounds like a fully-blown police officer by any other name, except for the fact that the person is a civilian. I question whether we want that sort of police service anywhere in the United Kingdom. For me, this is not specifically a Northern Ireland issue. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify what the Government have in mind with regard to the investigating officer.

Alistair Carmichael: I shall be brief. When I first saw the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, I thought along the same lines as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). However, the remainder of the section confers substantial powers on the investigating officer and others, which one would not normally expect to be given to support staff. Fingerprint experts, scene of crime officers and forensic scientists do not normally have to be given guidance on the reasonable use of force.
 I am concerned that compartmentalising the different functions of policing in that way will ultimately be bad for police morale. We seem to be saying that parts of their job can be taken in isolation because they are not that difficult. That approach is not unique to Northern Ireland: it comes through in many aspects of government policy on policing, and I consider it to be unhelpful.

Angela Smith: In the time available to me, I shall do my best to persuade the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment. I may not have quite enough time to do so.
 If amendment No. 127 were to be accepted, the Chief Constable would no longer be able to designate civilian police support staff as investigating officers. We resist that amendment for good reasons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green indicated, the clause is particularly relevant to scene of crime officers, most of whom are civilians, and I believe that it would be appropriate for them to continue in that role. 
 Investigating officers, have a vital role to play in dealing with specialist areas such as financial and information technology crime. The powers that they will exercise are mainly linked to entry, search and seizure, and include powers to obtain and exercise search warrants to seize evidence, and to apply to a judge for access to confidential material.

Jane Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. Although it grieves me to interrupt my hon. Friend, as it is the first opportunity that she has had to contribute to the debate today, I understand that my comments cannot be made once the 5 o'clock deadline falls.
 It therefore falls to me to interrupt the proceedings to offer my gratitude to you as Chairman, Mr. Amess, to the police and security staff, to the Committee Room staff who have serviced our deliberations, and 
 to the Hansard Reporters who have so faithfully tidied up and recorded our detailed contributions. I would also like to pay tribute to the invisible support that Ministers receive on these occasions. Without that support, we would perform far less effectively than we do—I will leave the judgment of our effectiveness to others. 
 During our consideration of this small but important Bill in relation to the changes that we have travelled through in Northern Ireland, the debates have been good humoured, thoughtful and deeply probing. The detailed scrutiny has helped me to develop arrangements for improving policing in Northern Ireland. 
 It would be remiss of me to fail to thank the usual channels for the way in which the Bill has been managed, particularly given the changes that we had to make at short notice last week to accommodate members of the Committee. I am grateful to all those who have contributed.

John Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I second the vote of thanks to the entire litany mentioned by the Minister, without repeating it in the time available On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I thank you, Mr. Gale and Mr. Benton for presiding over our affairs with such wisdom and courtesy. I particularly thank you, Mr. Amess, for your courtesy in correcting me earlier this afternoon. The experience reminded me of Lewis Carroll's ''Father William'', who could kick you downstairs with such infinite grace that you would think that he was handing you up.

Alistair Carmichael: Further to that point of order, Mr. Amess. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and I associate ourselves with the Minister's comments and those of the hon. Member for Solihull. Last week, proceedings took an unusual turn, but it is a testament to the good will all round that we moved on as smoothly as we did. I have greatly enjoyed being part of these proceedings.

David Trimble: Further to that point of order, Mr. Amess. I associate myself with the comments of Members who have just spoken. I have enjoyed being on the Committee, although I would not have minded had we sat last Tuesday.

David Amess: All that was quite out of order of course, but I thank all Members for the courtesies that they have extended to my two fellow Chairmen, who did all the work. I also give a big thank you to the Clerks for their invaluable advice.
 It being Five o'clock, The Chairman proceeded to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair. 
 Amendment negatived. 
 The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
 Question put, That clause 23 stand part of the Bill, That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill, That clauses 4, 24 and 25 stand part of the Bill, That 
schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill and That clauses 26 and 27 stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 1 agreed to. 
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 24 and 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 2 agreed to. 
 Clauses 26 and 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 - Liability for unlawful conduct

Amendments made: No. 81, in 
clause 28, page 19, line 19, leave out from beginning to 'accordingly' in line 22 and insert 
 'members of the police support staff— 
 (a) a member of the police support staff must be treated as an employee of the Chief Constable in relation to conduct in reliance or purported reliance on a designation under section 23; 
 (b) conduct by a member of the police support staff in reliance or purported reliance on a designation under section 23 must be taken to be conduct in the course of that employment; 
 (c) in the case of a tort, the Chief Constable'. 
No. 82, in 
clause 28, page 19, line 23, leave out subsection (2).—[Jane Kennedy.]
 Motion made, and Question put, That clause 28, as amended, and clauses 29 to 36 stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 29 to 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37 - Orders and regulations

Amendment made: No. 83, in 
clause 37, page 22, line 35, after 
 'section', insert [Protected disclosures by police officers](4),'.—[Jane Kennedy.]
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 37, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 - Repeals

Amendment made: No. 84, in 
clause 38, page 22, line 40, after 'repeals', insert 'and revocations'.—[Jane Kennedy.]
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 - Repeals

Amendments made: No. 85, in 
schedule 3, page 34, line 29, at beginning insert— 
 'Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/1919 (N.I. 16)) 
 In Article 243(1), the words ''Part VA,''.'.
 No. 86, in 
schedule 3, page 34, line 30, at end insert— 
 'Public Interest Disclosure (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/1763 (N.I. 17)) 
 Article 16.'. 
 No. 87, in 
schedule 3, page 34, line 39, at end insert— 
 '2 The revocations in the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and the Public Interest Disclosure (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 have effect in accordance with section [Protected disclosures by police officers](4) above.'.—[Jane Kennedy.] 
Motion made, and Question put, That this schedule, as amended, be the Third schedule to the Bill and That clause 39 stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to. 
 Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 - Short title

Amendment made: No. 88, in 
clause 40, page 23, line 5, leave out subsection (2).—[Jane Kennedy.]
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 40, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at ten minutes past Five o'clock.